Michael Luna v. County of Los Angeles et al
Filing
58
ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge S. James Otero, re Stipulation to Dismiss Case 54 , Stipulation for Settlement 55 . Court retains jurisdiction (Case Terminated. MD JS-6) (rrey)
<![CDATA[
Mark D. Rutter - State Bar No. 058194 David G. Torres-Siegrist - State Bar No. 220187 2 CARPENTER, ROTHANS & DUMONT 888 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1960 3 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 228-0400 4 Facsimile: (213) 228-0401 mrutter@crdlaw.com
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1
JS-6
Attorneys for defendants County of Los Angeles, Deputy Kenneth Felix, Deputy Timothy Lopez and Sgt. Nicholas Cabrera
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL LUNA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) -vs) ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ) ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S ) DEPARTMENT, KENNETH FELIX, ) TIMOTHY LOPEZ, NICHOLAS ) CABRERA, and DOES 1 through 10, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants ) ______________________________ ) Case No. CV 07-04715 SJO (JCx) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING from the stipulation of the parties regarding settlement and dismissal on file in this matter, the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of such settlement, this action by plaintiff Michael Luna is order dismissed with prejudice as against all parties served or unserved, named or unnamed, including the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Department, Deputy Kenneth Felix, Deputy Timothy Lopez and Sergeant Nicholas Cabrera IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November _20__, 2008 /S/ S. James Otero BY:______________________________ S. JAMES OTERO U.S. District Court Judge
2
1 2
PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
) ) ss. 3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 888 S. 5 Figueroa St., Suite 1960, Los Angeles, California 90017.
4
On November 20, 2008, I served the document(s) described as: INSERT NAME OF PLEADING on the interested party(ies) in this action by placing a 7 true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
6
Wilmer J. Harris, Esq. Peggy Roman-Jacobson, Esq. 9 SCHONBRUN DeSIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP 10 414 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101
8 11 12
( X) (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon 13 fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if 14 postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3
() () ()
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee(s). (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I caused said envelope(s) to be sent by Federal Express [Priority Overnight] to the offices of the addressee(s). (BY TELECOPIER) In addition to the above service by mail, hand delivery or Federal Express, I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by telecopier to the addressee(s) whose telecopier transmission machine telephone number is listed above. The above-described transmission was reported as complete without error by a transmission report issued by the facsimile transmission machine upon which the said transmission was made immediately following the transmission. A true and correct copy of the said transmission report is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Executed on November 20, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. LINDA RAMIREZ Name Signature
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
